Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    June 20, 2012 5:00pm-5:30pm PDT

5:00 pm
departments i've heard here today, we're working on creating some efficiencies with our i.t. and we want to civilianize two of the positions right now so that represents .09. we're also -- will be purchasing compass software and providing training to our deputies in compass. compass is something the adult probation uses. it's a risk-assessment tool and we want to make sure we can share information with each other. we had a recent system by sis co-and it revealed key flaws in our aging department's infrastructure. could not support the 1.8 million that it rep -- represented. so we're going to fund this
5:01 pm
from year to year and phase it in as a -- and we're going to begin with 450,000 this coming year. we're also working with the city on project emerge. and emerge does not have a scheduling component but will work for the san francisco sheriff's department and this will allow us to schedule more efficiently as a way to reduce overtime. i think that's it. i'm sorry, i forgot. the additional permanent salary dollars is $600,000. we've lost over 75 sworn position in the last three years and we have not hired since 2009. in addition, we currently have close to 48 employees off on leave and 25 of those are not expected to return. so we worked with the mayor's office to put this in our budget and hopefully this will
5:02 pm
help reduce overtime costs. then we also received some additional overtime, because our secure ward at san francisco general is closed most of the year. 95% of the year it was closed, our medical ward, which means that each time a prisoner is admitted to the hospital we have to have a deputy sheriff guarding that prisoner. that resulted in over $500,000 worth of overtime this year and the mayor's bunt offers did a study and figured out basically that it doesn't pay for the city as a whole to open the medical ward unless we have three or more prisoners at a time in there. this ward fills fast because it also houses psychiatric inmates. supervisor chu: are quick question on your first item of efficiencies. you said that out of 13 i.t. positions that are currently staffed by sworn officers you'd
5:03 pm
be able to do one each year? >> i'm doing two this coming year and we'll try for two the following year. but we're phasing them in supervisor chu: is there a reason why we can't do a more accelerated process? four out of 13 doesn't sound like a like -- lot but maybe there are some challenges to do that. >> we were the only department that went live on the justice program back in zpwine with that our i.t. was required to work 24/7 to provide the help desk. seeing the police presentation today i think maybe we need to talk about how we're going to do the 24/7 help desk with them. and i think there may be some efficiencies we could realize in the next year's budgets, but in turn we also use the sworn deputies to -- they manage the
5:04 pm
transportation lists for the next day. they manage taking bail. right now we're taking 24/7 bails for the courts, for the city and county of san francisco, and we're also in charge of the prisoner inmate welfare -- i'm sorry, the come sarpe fund, this is -- commissarry fund, this -- which is about $3 million a year. so they're doing other functions. supervisor chu: i see. so the 14 sworn officers working in i.t. are also doing a number of other duties? >> that's correct but i think we can find that combination that will work as we phase in civilians and see how it goes. so these are the mandatory cost increases for the coming year. m.o.u. requirements for
5:05 pm
longevity pay, uniform allowance and meals awarded at the bargaining table. the housing authority no longer uses our department to perform background checks on potential tenants and there were additional salary and fringe benefits awarded. so overall, our savings to the general fund are 10 million .6 this year from last year. the efficiency proposals, we added in the mandatory cost increases and due to chief still's advocacy for the city in sacramento, we were awarded 8.54 million for realignment this year. i do have some slides here about realignment. i'm not sure if you want to see
5:06 pm
those now. supervisor chu: why don't we just go highly -- high level over them. >> i'm sorry? supervisor chu: why don't we just go over the highlights. >> i can tell that you a.b. 109 went into effect october 2007. -- 2011. cdcr provided pronlses of prisoners leaving custody to go to local facilities and part of our f.y. 2011 bunt was based on realignment projections. the results have actually lead -- gone over the projections. we used to get paid for our state parole and we don't anymore. we have this last month 249. so i guess what i wanted to say
5:07 pm
by telling you all that is just that it's not quite what we expected to be and i'm sure the chief will have more to say about that in terms of probation. supervisor chu: thank you. i'm wondering if you might be able to speak a little bit about staffing levels overall in the department. i know we spent a lot of time with some of the other departments on staffing and i notice with your bunt, primarily jail six is going to remain closed at the time and i'm just wondering in terms of changes to your overtime or changes to your operational budget as it relates to this partial culture? >> when jail six closed in april of 2010, there were 40 people that were resigned throughout the department. and even though we had lot a number of people before that, those people kind of offset the overtime for the year. as attrition increased, we
5:08 pm
ended up spending more overtime based on the fact that we had lost 75 people. we accounted for the 40 when we lost jail six. we accounted for the other 27 that were taken because we hadn't taken a class since 2009, but it still gives us a deficit of a few. but in addition to that right now we have 48 people off on long-term leave. that has not just occurred all at once but over time. and so our overtime was on it way up. in the meantime, what i've asked for in this budget is a few positions for the p.u.c. and p.u.c. is going to pay for those positions. for positions to guard the new building, and in addition to that we're being allowed to hire because of the redu,s i made in some -- reductions i made in some of the promotive
5:09 pm
positions. so right now our department has 1,010 in this budget. that's 863 sworn positions and 147 nonsworn. is that what you were asking, supervisor? supervisor chu: but just with regards to the budget analyst recommendations, where are you with that? >> well, as far as i know the budget analyst's recommendations are to take away basically 130,000 from my department at this point and i've worked with amanda of the office and there were other recommendations that we actually were able to discuss and agree upon and so i can live with this recommendation. at this time. supervisor chu: supervisor kim? supervisor kim: thank you. and thank you for that. i appreciate that.
5:10 pm
i actually had another question on your professional services budget. it could be that i didn't have a good understanding of when i read it. but i know that in physical year 2010 that you allocated 7.8 million but it looked like you only spent 2.6 million of that and i know that this past fiscal year there was 10 million more than what you had spent as well, within your line item of professional services so i was hoping you could address that because you still continue to have that amount in your budget and i was curious to why there seemed to be that discrepancy. >> i'm not sure. i think it may be the food contract and it could be the electronic monitoring. those are the two that because of the count was low -- lower we would have saved money. but we actually just renegotiated the food contract
5:11 pm
for the coming year and i think we made that adjustment. supervisor kim: you know your line item more accurately reflects what you will actually spend? >> are you talking about 021? that's professional services. i think also the debt services for the sam gruleder jail are included in that as well now. supervisor kim: i'm not sure exactly what that is. there's a line item under professional services and i'm looking at that in the bunt. in 2010 fiscal year it was 7 .8. looked like what you spent was 2.6. the following year you had allocated 12.2. so an increase over the 7 .8 and you spent this year 4.3 but still didn't spend down the professional bunt services. >> i'm going to have to research that and get back with you. supervisor kim: that will be great, thank you. >> i'll be happy to do that.
5:12 pm
>> are you looking at -- in the mayor's budget book the information about professional and contract you recall services perhaps? supervisor kim: yes, i had written it out. >> i think what you're seeing there is what she referenced, which is the difference in 2011 of no-debt service for the jail in their budget and then 1112 that service being bunted. it's really that the budget increased in the second year due to the debt service expenditures. supervisor kim: thank you. supervisor chu: thank you. >> thank you. supervisor chu: mr. rose?
5:13 pm
>> madam chair and members of the committee, as i understand it the chair concurs with our recommended redid you gos for 1213 of 120,000. we have no repses for 1314. can you supervisor chu: with regards to overtime, i see in terms of the department's -- the spread sheet. if you look at the book it doesn't really break out salaries in fringe to overtime versus straight time. it looks like here you're proposing $6.3 million in overtime? >> this year, yes. supervisor chu: in this coming year as well as the second year. i'm just trying to understand whether we think there are any ways to control that overtime. why do we still need overtime if we have one jail that's closed down?
5:14 pm
>> one of the reasons we need overtime is because our relief factors are not accurate. and a few weeks ago i started staffing analysis based on the national institute of corrections and we're understaffed according to that but also our network hours are pretty low. what that means is we really don't have enough staff to cover when somebody's off for some reason. during non-productive work hours, we don't have enough people to cover. so that's the main reason. and i would say one of the things we're trying to do is make those adjustments and we've also started a wellness program within our own department on our own trying to figure out how to get people back to work that are on disabilities and provide some safety training for people on certain areas of disability. i have a whole city on that as well but i didn't want to put
5:15 pm
the whole study in this presentation. supervisor chu: programs we can follow up with that information. >> supervisor, the sheriff worked closely at our office to look at their historical use of overtime, so the number they're bunted for in the current year is the average of the last three years of overtime use so we feel that it is quite reflective of the need in the department. c.j. 6, also known as the little jail, was also closed over the last several years and so it does account for that closure. supervisor chu: great. thank you. so colleagues. can we entertain a motion to accept the budget analyst's recommendation? we'll do and -- that and without objection. thank you very much. final department, the adult probation department?
5:16 pm
chief, i understand your presentation is very lengthy. i would request that we don't go through your entire presentation. i've heard it's very, very long. >> we will attempt to minimize that. how's that? i think i actually have about 11 slides and i'll go through them as quickly as i can. >> thank you very much. wendy sill, probation officer. thank you for inviolating me here today to speak on your budget. i would like to thank the budget officer, the budget director, kate howard, melissa
5:17 pm
howard, our analyst. ben rosen fed, the controller and his staff and mr. harvey rose and his staff. amanda gumea. probation is changing significantly. realignment and probation, evidence-based probation has really changed our world. adult probation is a cost-effective solution to today's criminal justice issues. we basically, for all of our last year cost, our costs per offender was $5.12, as opposed to the are parole decision -- division's supervision is $19. jail incarceration currently is $100 a day for a bed and community corrections and community supervision is very important to be successful because if we are we can have substantial savings in the sheriff's bed costs as well as
5:18 pm
other parts of the criminal justice system. with that said, we were able to reduce the number of probation-related individuals in the jails by 50% and this resulted in a savings of 350 beds, which equates to over $17 million. and so where we see the jail's population is down substantially, it's not by chance we are actively out there turning supplemental reports into the court quickly. we are also providing alternatives using remedial sanctions and also using such things as flash incarceration. all of these things designed to have a more effective intervention, hold the offender accountable but not take up the costly jail beds. our current probation population is 6,028 and this is down. roughly 81% or felony and 19%
5:19 pm
are misdemeanors. 84% are male, 15% or 16% are females and the majority of the crismse are either drug offenses or related. 10% narcotics sales. 38% property crimes, 23%, the majority of those crimes basically are related to the truck addictive behavior crimes against person, 22%. i might note that violent crime is down in san francisco by 11% at a time when all this criminal justice population is being realigned to san francisco. so i feel that staff are doing an excellent job and i really want to compliment my staff. our risk level of the san francisco drug probationers. high is 7%. medium, 15%, low 18% and this is significantly higher than in the average county. that's because we have so many alternatives that we pursue in
5:20 pm
san francisco. we have collaborative courts, the c.j.y., a -- c.j.c. a variety of drug treatments that are available. the population that we are supervising related to regular probationers is higher than the regular probationer in other counties. probation trends in 2011. we were able to successfully decrease our overall probation population by 9% from 6,800 roughly down to 6,200. 22% of all probations were terminated. basically they were completed either successfully or unsuccessfully. out of those terminations, 7 % were successful. that 78% success rate as compared to the state's failure rate is 7 %. so we have diametrically opposite the relationship and
5:21 pm
22% of our terminations were unsuccessful, so we're very proud of the fact over 3 faurts -- 3/4 of our probationers are successfully terminating. the successful terminations that impact positively reduce jail beds. also, what the court has done, which is really impacting our population realignment is that they are really relying upon mandatory supervision more so than jail beds. part of the projection that the state had was that at this i given time related to alternative sentencing that there would be 221 jail beds associated with that. that is not the case. there are significantly fewer. the beds that the sheriff is spearsing use of the related to paroles, again, failure and their parole violators. we have successfully taken that
5:22 pm
mandatory supervision. the judges are basically sentencing over 50% of the cases to mandatory supervision, which probation supervises out in the community rather than a jail bed in comparison to los angeles, basically their judges are only using 5% of mandatory supervision as compared to 50% for ours. and that's because the judges have faith and we are being successful. to talk about basically our supervision cases, we have currently in terms of the prcf population. the release of the prisoners, that are being released from the state coming to us for supervision rather than state parole supervision, as of today we have 300 cases. the state projected that we would have 456. we will far exceed that. we are right now 11% above what
5:23 pm
they projected. the 11 supervision cases, we're projecting 263, at least five times what the state would have projected us to have. our highest risk cases, we're proposing two additional positions out of the three proposed in the bunt to handle those highest risks that are cycling through the jail system that are out there violating creating additional victims and basically they need to be closely supervise. our ratio, as they are for this high-risk population, 90% of the population that the state has sent for local prison-jail incarceration and also for the post release supervision, 90% of them are high risk. aapa recommended standards are 20-1. my staff is supervising this population at a 50-1 ratio. so we're already supervising well over two times that and what i'm asking for in the
5:24 pm
budget to be paid for by state funds is two additional positions for those highest risk cases. in 2013 i project that our combined realigned population will be 719. and it will grow to 823 by 3014 and 1878 by 14-15. and we want these projections to come true. in they don't, what that means is our jail population are -- will grow and that's when these interventions become so critical and especially the interventions such as the treatment services that we have available. just to talk about our overtime before we jump into the budget. happy to report it has taken a lot of effort, but we have zero overtime budgeted and we have zero overtime expended. this is when we're absorbing the highest massive historic shift of criminal justice in
5:25 pm
our history. staff have worked hard. staff are working higher case loads but we've been able to do it. fortunately we have 22 individuals that we're getting ready to hire, which will help us reduce the case loads and make the workload much more manageable. in terms of our job creation programs, we have a mentoring program, which we will employ june absolutely august through the mayor's jobs program. and we employee five interns on a continuous basis and we also give them an opportunity to become probation aides for those that are the most skilled and some of them are now testing for our probation officer so we're recruiting them into the probation officers so it's our succession planning program. language access. 9% of our clients are limited
5:26 pm
english proficient. 87% of these are spanish speaking. 15% of our public contact staff are certified bilingual. 38% of the new hires will be byling intellectual. -- bilingual. cantonese and also spanish speaking. supervisor chu: thank you, supervisor cohen? supervisor cohen: how long has your plan been around? >> since i have, two years. we also issued a bilingual policy, which means a are staff are paid for, their bilingual skills. we also have our main lines recorded messageses with business information, and our bilingual recordings and department forms are bilingual. if i go too fast, please tell me. i'm trying to get through it for you. in terms of our overall bunt, getting a picture of what it looked like in 2010-11.
5:27 pm
our budget was about $12 million, 12.7. the final annual allotment was 21 million and that was related to the realigned resources that primarily came into us as well as some grant funding. we've been very successful in getting grant funding. s.b. 678 gave each county the opportunity to reduce the violators to state prison and they granted each county money for a certain amount for every individual that we reduced beyond our average. we've been very successful. 48% reduction of those violators by wrapping around services and having successful intervention. as a result we've received over $2.1 million in grants and we're taking that money and 100% of the being reinvested back into services.
5:28 pm
in 2012-13, our proposed budget, it shifts also. its recognizes that our realignment population is growing and so the funds associated with realignment are growing. the state was going do give us $10 million and i went to the state and lobbied because of the fact that the funding perform -- formula penalized san francisco. and the law resulting in the formula being changed, an increase from 10 million to $17 million. 6 % of our budget are related to labor, primarily the staff are performing the supervisor roles of the probation officers or the remainder of them are administrative-time staff, which is roughly -- probably there's 80% that are sworn staff with a little less than 20% non-sworn staff.
5:29 pm
we have a nonlabor cost. about 17%, 16% services from other departments. we work order a tremendous amount of service dollars to public health for mental health, substance abuse and other services related to the probasers and the realign population as well as money for housing services. a third of the realignment dollars that came into the city, we have been reallocated for services. if we're going to be successful in the intervention it's going to be because of the fact that we have services available for the population. in terms of the overall budget changes from the last fiscal year, the net increase is $4.1 million. the state funding is 4.17. sb 678 funding, an